Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

    You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

    Open tasks

    XFD backlog
    V Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
    CfD 0 0 3 29 32
    TfD 0 0 1 5 6
    MfD 0 0 1 1 2
    FfD 0 0 27 4 31
    RfD 0 0 26 25 51
    AfD 0 0 0 1 1


    Reverse partial blocks are coming to MediaWiki!

    Hi! I’m excited to announce a new feature—reverse partial blocks—which I developed for the admin toolkit and is coming soon to MediaWiki core. I’m posting here to gather feedback, discuss usage policy, and answer any questions. I think it's important for developers to communicate with the community (in this case Admins) effected by new changes or features so we can work together to find out the best way to implement them.

    What is it?

    Reverse partial blocks allow admins to block a user sitewide but exempt specific pages or namespaces. This was based on a wish from Barkeep49 and implemented in MediaWiki. (Note: TPA access works separately, based on the "allow user to edit their own talk page" option on Special:Block)

    The code is complete, passes all tests, and is waiting for approval from WMF Trust and Safety. You can track progress and view the code here on Gerrit. Once approved, it will go live on English Wikipedia the following Thursday.

    Try it out

    I’ve set up a Patch Demo instance where you can preview the new features, including the updated Special:BlockList and Special:Block interfaces. Log in with admin username Patch Demo and password patchdemo1 to experiment with reverse partial blocks, but please reset block settings to how you found them once you've finished, to allow others to experiment. (Note: if you're a wannabe admin or just curious about how the tools look, you can use this account as well to test them out).

    To see how it works for a reverse-partially-blocked user, log in as Mallory (without TPA or account creation, editing only allowed on their "ArbCom case" page) with the same password.

    Your feedback

    If you could change anything about this feature, what would you do? (I will implement any wanted suggestions!)

    If you don’t have time to try it, what would you expect from a feature like this? When do you think it’s appropriate to use, and when is it not?

    I’m happy to answer any questions about how it works and would love to hear your thoughts!

    Thanks for all the great work you do as admins! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you're naively optimistic about the code review process - it's more likely in my opinion that this will languish unreviewed for months. Cool idea, and thanks for coding it up, though. * Pppery * it has begun... 07:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess so, I was just so excited to have actually coded a new feature! Maybe it will be approved in time for the 1.44 release in mid-April but we will have to see. Thank you for helping me with rechecks! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MolecularPilot, I'm curious for the process of this coming together. Is there a discussion page you can point to that followed the progress of this admin tool? It seems to come out of nowhere but maybe I don't have the right pages on my Watchlist. Except for obvious vandals, I don't do a lot of blocking so I don't know how much this feature will impact the work that I do here. I'll have to consider this a bit more. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Discussion has mainly occured on Metawiki and phabricator. This has been an item on the Metawiki Community wishlist for several years now (but never selected as one that the WMF make, because most voters aren't admins so it doesn't get a high ranking) that has received support from admins across various projects and been renominated by different users for each year's wishlist for several years now, and yesterday Barkeep49 added it to the 2025 wishlist. Additionally, on phabricator (see phab:T27400, that's probably the main ticket) it will be celebrating its 15th birthday this year and during that time a large number of admins have subscribed (basically like watchlisting) and many have offered reasons why they want it/it is needed for their language of Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 08:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that's the background context I was looking for. I appreciate you providing it. Congratulations on your coding accomplishment! Liz Read! Talk! 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I hope it can be useful to you admins once it gets approved and merged. :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 09:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting feature. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at the message at [1], unless I'm missing something, it seems to be saying he (she?) is ONLY prevented from editing the Arbcom page, as opposed to being blocked sitewide except for the ArbCom page. "blocking the page ArbCom/Cases/Mallory with an expiration time of indefinite". Doesn't that sound like they can't edit their ArbCom page but can edit anything else? --B (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for trying it and providing this feedback! Yeah, I totally agree and am fixing the log message now :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 01:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, but I feel like this feature could be very useful. However, the block log message seems kind of counter-intuitive and inaccurate because it is still the standard P-block message, only a "reverse" label added to it. This could create confusion because it is still literally worded "blocked (user) from editing the page (page title)... (reverse)". This still implies that the user is blocked from editing those specific pages, when in reality the user is blocked from editing every other page except those pages, so this message isn't really that much accurate. I think something along the lines of "with the exception of pages (pages)" could work. User3749 (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Mallory" is an autogenerated account by PatchDemo, I'm not quite sure about their gender lol, but yeah, the log message does need improvement, thank you for your time in trying it out and bringing that up (with a perfect suggestion for the new message). I'm fixing the code now. :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 01:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update on feedback: I've successfully improved log messages as requested (thanks for the feedback!), they look like the below:
    Log message
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    02:36, 25 January 2025 Admin (talk|contribs|block) changed block settings for MolecularPilot (talk|contribs) blocking them sitewide except for the page ArbCom/Cases/MolecularPilot with an expiration time of 1 week (autoblock disabled) (Blocking with this summary) (unblock|change block)

    Additionally, someone noted on the Patch Demo wiki that there was a bug with revoking TPA but using a reverse partial block. This has now been resolved, it is possible to revoke TPA but use the new feature to still allow them to edit some pages.
    This isn't avaliable on the Patch Demo or gerrit yet, but will be soon. Thank you to everyone for their feedback! MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 04:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, that was me testing the feature, I needed it because I run a bunch of other MediaWiki wikis (mostly Miraheze). Should I also note, that once I tried reverse partial blocking for a specific page while also blocking account creation, and while logged in as Mallory I don't think I was actually prevented from creating accounts (I didn't actually try to create one but I was able to access Special:CreateAccount which normally should not happen) which might be an issue caused by this. User3749 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Thank you so much for helping to find bugs! Yesterday I submitted the new code (with better log messages, fixed TPA, rpbs via the API) to gerrit and today I updated the patch demo instance. I tested it (locally and on patch demo) and it seems the behaviour is that you can go to Special:CreateAccount and fill out all the fields etc. but actually pressing submit will tell you "you are blocked from doing this", and it's the same with regular old partial blocks w/o account creation. :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 00:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On a terminology note: rather than calling it reverse partial blocks, which to me feels like I have to mentally invert the set of affected pages a couple of times, perhaps the feature could be called something like block exceptions? isaacl (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that name, thank you for suggesting it! :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 09:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this, seems less confusing compared to reverse partial blocking. In this case there would still be a separate option on the Special:Block interface, but labeled "Sitewide with exceptions". User3749 (talk) 11:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's perfect! I'll update the (currently pending WMF review) gerrit patch. :) MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes needed at Talk:Natalie Portman

    Discussion has continued but calmed down and Jimbo Wales has joined in. I think this case can be closed but reopened if things flare up again. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    There's quite the brouhaha at Talk:Natalie Portman. When I blocked NetanelWorthy, they threatened a call to arms noting they would "flood this site away". The article has had to be extended protected due to the subsequent disruption and the talk page is now being overwhelmed with edits based on posts on X by a couple of advocacy accounts. The talk page now has a CTOP notice, but the non-EC edits continue. Any help in keeping an eye on the talk page would be appreciated.-- Ponyobons mots 23:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I've ECP'd for a few days. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed several messages from NetanelWorthy's User talk page that I thought were threatening. Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Admin needed at Denali

    The semiprotection will continue until editwarring improves. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    It needs either protection again or some blocks for edit warring. I'm too involved to make the call. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess I could protect it. Normally, listening to heavy metal puts me in the mood to block people, but I guess I've built up a tolerance to having angry people scream nihilistic lyrics in my ears. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Full protection on this article. Some editors could probably get edit-warring blocks but I'm nearly done for the day. Liz Read! Talk! 06:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming that at some point the outrage machine will move on to other topics and it won't seem like something important enough to get blocked over, but I've been wrong before. I miss the days when it was just a page about a mountain and not a political hot-button. Thanks for the protection NRP. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 18:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protection ended this morning and then the edit-warring started back up. Now protected for a month. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    LgShai

    No further edits made. Star Mississippi 03:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    personal attack? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I posted them a warning on their User talk page. Let's see if it changes their behavior. Could just be someone having a bad day. Admins differ but I need to see more than one nasty comment to block for incivility. Liz Read! Talk! 09:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I really hope they don't make any more nasty comments. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Liz Read! Talk! 09:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What Liz said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Personal attacks and threats on an AfD

    IPs blocked. Schazjmd (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC). Noting post-close that I modified the block to a /24 rangeblock. It looks like mostly school vandalism on that range.-- Ponyobons mots 19:13, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    173.245.254.67 (talk · contribs) and 173.245.254.78 (talk · contribs)
    I'm reporting both of these IPs (most likely used by the same person) as their behaviour on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash, which has since stopped, has been, to put it short, quite atrocious. Barring the non-constructive comments made on the AfD, these two IPs have made comments that are quite simply unacceptable, threatening the lives of users. [2] [3] [4] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Those IP addresses have rightly been blocked. Please close this, someone that knows how. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    (Non-administrator comment) Don't we usually report death threats to WMF? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, I reported it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for lifting my topic ban

    Request withdrawn pending formal request. Star Mississippi 16:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello everyone.

    I would like to request my topic ban, that has been imposed on me since 2022 (see here), be lifted.

    I believe I have demonstrated good behaviour to the WP community during these about 3 years.

    I am requesting the lift of this ban mainly because it greatly reduces my ability to work on Eastern Orthodox and Christian topics. Veverve (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If your main reason for wanting it lifted is to edit those articles, perhaps a narrowing of the tban should be considered. "Russia" is certainly a very broad topic. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 18:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Veverve, please tell us about the problems with your editing that led to your topic ban, how your approach to editing has changed since then, and why other editors can feel confident that removing or modifying your topic ban would not result in new problems. Are you expecting a complete removal of your topic ban or are you willing to accept a modification? Cullen328 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A question: Given that the topic ban was instituted by WP:AE, wouldn't any appeals need to be addressed there? TarnishedPathtalk 04:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You will find the answer to this question at the collapsed section “Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions” and its neighbor over there; the venue is fine. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't this governed by the CTOP procedures not the non CTOP ones? I just assumed it was CTOP since it's EE but in any case, it seems to be CTOP since it's logged here Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#Eastern Europe. If it's CTOP while the venue is valid, as I noted below the appeal doesn't seem to be since it doesn't use the required template (which is also noted in the appeals procedure for CTOP in the collapsed section). Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, per Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments, CTOP (as with DS before then) restrictions can be appealed by 'request review ..... at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN")' and can be lifted or modified if 'a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN'. However per the CTOP page, 'Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.' so this does seem to be in invalid appeal. So User:Veverve I suggest you withdraw this and resubmit it via the correct template. I think the main reason for the template requirement is because it makes it easier to assess if it's a consensus of uninvolved editors. Also administrators are encouraged to be more vigilant in enforcing decorum requirements than might be the case for more normal AN discussions. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that I wasn't aware that there was such a requirement, and initially posted as such. I'm fairly sure I've seen successful appeals which did not use the template which per WP:NOTBURO etc I'm sure we won't overturn but still illustrates the situation is a little confusing. While the template does have the advantages I noted, not everyone likes it. Nil Einne (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw this application as advised by Nil Einne, as it does not meet formal requirements. Veverve (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Another chapter in the never-ending saga of Florentino Floro

    MISCHIEF MANAGED
    The database doesn’t take too kindly to multiple admins deleting scads of files at the same time. Either that, or Floro’s duendes were being mischievous on his behalf. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Valenzuela400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This is yet another sock of long-banned Florentino floro, so technically all of these uploads can be speedy deleted. We have an entire article about him at Florentino Floro that may help those unfamiliar understand the issue we are dealing with here.

    He's been blocked here for sixteen years, but continues to sock and disrupt both here and at Commons. He takes pictures of everything, completely indiscriminately. There is no reasoning with him, it's been tried and it has never accomplished anything. I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long, I was hoping the office banhammer would come down.

    So, to get around to the point, there are hundreds of largely useless uploads from this account [5]. Do we FFD them one at a time or just nuke the entire site from orbit? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Just G5 them all. FFD would be a waste of community resources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What voorts said. (one can grow old waiting for the foundation.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    G5 them all. Not only are they useless, many of the photos include images of private individuals, including children at waterparks etc. No thank you.-- Ponyobons mots 21:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also hoping that posting this will make more admins aware of his pattern so new socks are dealt with quickly. It seems like the reason he's doing this here is that they finally chased him off on Commons, so it is at least within the realm of possibility that if he keeps getting caught he'll move on to... I dunno, mass uploads at Meta or something. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've hit the nuke button, with apologies to the WMF server gods for the extra cargo.-- Ponyobons mots 22:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so that was the database error! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, it would appear so. I'll knock it back to 25 at a go, with breaks. I think this is the first time I've actually broken something.-- Ponyobons mots 22:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I get an error when I try to delete the images even one at a time now, so I think it's now just a database lag from the massive nuke. I'll wait an hour and check again.-- Ponyobons mots 22:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, I was trying to do it at the same time, so perhaps we both broke something? Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Spider Man pointing at Spider Man.-- Ponyobons mots 22:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If my memory is not failing me, Special:Nuke has a tendency to break under exactly those circumstances. JayCubby 23:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I managed to successfully G5 the water park images of children files. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All images have now been deleted.-- Ponyobons mots 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Guys, seriously, when they tell you not to cross the steams, you really should listen to them. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two of you? Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting out of hand... - The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really a nuke button if you can't actually nuke anything without breaking the database. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    File deletions are more work on the server than normal deletions because it has to move the entire file (and all versions of it) from the Swift container used to store live files to the Swift container used to store deleted files, whereas for text no content is moved and everything is in the same database. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: Just curious about the context for I've asked Trust and Safety to just office ban him, and it took them literally an entire year to get back to me saying they won't and that we seem to be handling it just fine. That's why this account got away with it for so long. Is there a feature of a global ban that would get around the "volunteers have to figure out it's a sock of a banned user and then take action" bit? If not, what does global banning do other than providing an easy reason to ban on other projects if/when disruption occurs? Regardless, global bans can be proposed on meta without the foundation, although perhaps there feature of the ban you're alluding to is only part of the meta:WMF Global Ban Policy and not just global bans? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't always work, but sometimes when a person is office banned, they change up from disrupting the projects to pestering trust and safety and/or legal, who get paid a lot more than we do. It was also my hope that as a former judge, maybe if the legal department told him to stop, he would. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From reading his article (and good lawd have mercy) the legal department telling him to stop would only "encourage" him. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Closed discussions which was not on Closure requests

    No. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    On this talk page, many discussions were closed by some people. All of them were not on Closure requests, and they were on progress. The summaries seem to be unappropriate. A discussion I started were closed by the summary of "Waste of time" (in fact, it had not passed even 1 week after creation). Could you remove the closures? Or, can I remove them by myself? NakajKak (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Suspicious talk page message

    Asked and answered.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello. I got a weird talk page message from an anonymous editor. It is not in English nor Turkish (two languages that I know) so I used Google Translate and the output text was pretty suspicious in both English and Turkish. I want to know if this user talks about some real things, or if he/she is just trolling. Thanks. I didn't want to report it to WP:ANI or the emergency e-mail because they are for very serious problems which may not be the case here, and I don't know anywhere other to report this, so excuse me if I'm in the wrong place. RuzDD (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like spam in Persian to me. As to why it was posted to your talk-page, I have no idea. It says something like: "contact me and be hidden from safety (?). Lectonar (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. RuzDD (talk) 12:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    copied from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Username_changes

    Trainrobber66

    New username: OA3g93hi
    (understood why I can't put # in username, renamed as a result). I understand that my new username can be random. However, I simply want to remain anonymous on wikipedia now due to security reasons. If username is changed, could you also delete the revisions and entries from here? Trainrobber66 (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Renamer note: To clarify, user asked the stewards for a rename and was told to come here to see if the partial block raises any concerns about renaming. Generally, we do not rename if "under a cloud." It looks like the blocking admin, @Red-tailed hawk: is not available. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Let me take a look at this case. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After re-familiarizing myself with this case, yes, I do think this would be a case of "under a cloud". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the rename, but regardless of whether it goes ahead your not going to get revision deletion for all your edits. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Kinda weird that they are claiming the name change is because they want to be anonymous when their current name is equally anonymous. In any event they currently are not allowed to edit article space at all. I'd say that's a pretty major "cloud" and wanting all their edits deleted isn't exactly encouraging. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 19:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's not going to fly. If it weren't for the pblock I'd just suggest WP:CLEANSTART but there's the pblock, so... - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My restrictions.

    No admin action needed here. DofB is welcome to return, subject to the restrictions in place, when they are ready. For those wishing to contact DofB, please use their Talk. Star Mississippi 01:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi I have made the decision to quit editing further. The restrictions and mass exodus of editing has killed my interests to continue further editing. If a community ban is needed. I accept. Im not improving and others are getting sick of it. So just do what is best. DragonofBatley (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey @DragonofBatley, I totally get why you feel this way. Seeing such a huge list of things to do will overwhelm anyone, let alone anyone with neurodiversity.
    I was a bit worried this might happen when the list was created, which is why it's important to tackle big tasks in small stages and - most importantly - step away if things get overwhelming.
    It sounds like you should do that now. Other editors are working on the list, but you shouldn't if it's upsetting or stressing you out in any way. That'll only make you hate editing.
    You don't need a community ban, you need space. Step back for a while. Don't edit, ideally don't even look at Wikipedia. Don't give yourself any sort of timeframe for coming back.
    If or when you feel up to it, you can come back and see how things are going, or not come back at all. This is a voluntary project, you don't have to do anything if you don't want to.
    Sign out, close any Wikipedia pages or bookmarks, and go do something fun. Blue Sonnet (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Sita Bose globally locked as a sock of WMF-banned user Nrcprm2026

    No further action needed. Star Mississippi 22:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This just happened about a week ago after a Meta CU confirmed the socking and locked the account. This is probably the 90-somethingth sockpuppet discovered after they were banned from enwiki, and some other number since they were globally banned.

    I notice there is no LTA case page for the user. I am not familiar with their editing styles, which is why I am wondering if an LTA case page might be appropriate. Since they are banned by WMF, I do think it would be helpful to know their modus operandi to try to detect future Nrcprm socks in the future. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 21:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Aasim,
    Feel free to start an SPI case if you can identify new sockpuppets but don't create an LTA page, we don't do that much any more. And, typically, we leave tagging the User pages of blocked editors, like you did at User:Sita Bose, to Checkusers and SPI clerks.
    Many editors receive global blocks due to SPI cases though, you don't need to report them at WP:AN. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is it was already confirmed by a Meta Steward/CheckUser that the user was a sock.
    I understand though if there may be a problem with non-CUs using the {{sock}} template. If an enwiki CU wants to add to SPI for the record, sure go ahead. I don't know if there is a need to go through these formalities when it would effectively mean nothing since the account is already globally locked. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sock templates are generally used for SPI cases, not for tagging random socks. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. G7? Or just leave it there? Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would just leave it. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note the above for future reference. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 03:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Query to admins

    IBAN MAINTAINED
    Any further shin kicks or back pats should be directed to Liz’s page. DoctorWhoFan91 advised to cool it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hello, I am hoping to get some feedback on an action I took. In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Voluntary IBAN, DoctorWhoFan91 adopted a one-sided IBAN between themselves and Alex 21 and added themselves to the Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Voluntary list see here. They later reverted themselves, saying, in part, in their edit summary, Some admin can take the action. Since this seemed to be what they wanted, I reverted their revert and added them back to the voluntary editing restrictions list. I'll admit that I could be seen as having a COI as DoctorWhoFan91 complained about me several times in the ANI report for not taking action against the other editor although they refrained from identifying me by name.

    So, should this voluntary editing restriction be removed even though the editor suggested it and adopted it or was I incorrect? I'll accept whatever opinion the admin community says is appropriate. Thank you for offering me your thoughts. Liz Read! Talk! 02:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Maintain IBAN. An editor can't just rescind their voluntary editing restriction. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Query as the second side of the IBAN. I'll have no arguments however this turns out, whether it's maintained or extended to a two-way, but I'd like clarification on how an IBAN works. Per this comment of mine, are any of the latter three diffs listed there in contrary to an IBAN? -- Alex_21 TALK 02:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Non-administrator comment) At first glance temporary two way iban may be effective. It seems as if a temporary two-way IBAN may be in order. I cannot look in too much detail at this time so take this bolded !vote with very little weight. The restrictions that are the most effective are the ones that are the least restrictive, being narrowly tailored to just the particular areas of disruption. If there is a need to extend it can be done further down the road. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On second note, maybe an indef 2way iban appealable after six months. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about expanding the IBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, Aasim, no one, admins or participants, proposed a 2-way IBAN. Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, striking out. Had a long day. I can say a voluntary ban is a contract between the editor and the enforcers of the ban. If the community decides a ban is unwarranted, making it voluntary doesn't change that. I see voluntary restrictions as a way to avoid wasting the community's time on disputes that have resolved themselves. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or matters which petered out bcs somone can't take more than 2 mins before replying generically. (Just a factual statement) And only the original statement could propose anything here, unless participants means in the ani thread-where in fact a propasal to make it 2 way if any admins wants was made, so no one proposing anything more than a 1way iban is not really factual. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    bcs somone can't take more than 2 mins before replying generically Who is this factual statement referring to? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Liz, who request a speedy deletion at 8:42 utc on 6 feb(she had been tagging csd, and checking prod and afd for hours), and at 8:46 utc on 6 feb, replies to my original msg at ani. Given that that includes time for typing, and time for reading the words without reading any of the links, I would say it was a 2 min thought. Generic bcs it is generic- have you tried talking it out- 5 arguments in a week and that is what is replied.
    And I do not believe even that 2 min read was carried out properly - on my talk page she writes that no one has time to "review the entire history of interactions" when it was one week out of like 6-8 weeks. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what your beef with Liz is and I don't really understand what you're trying to say. I only asked to make sure you weren't referring to Alex 21. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't, I'm not gonna break my iban. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea why you are tracking my contributions or timing my actions on the project. I try to help where I can. I'm sorry if you found my comments "generic". I thought some response was better than silence. But I definitely will stay away from any problems you might have in the future since you dislike what I can offer. Let's all move on and go back to when we didn't know each other existed. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not tracking your contributions, just the one contribution and the ones around it. Some response is better than silence, responses that are basically "here is a summary of how disputes are resolved on wikipedia" when I already wrote why I tried ani, is not. Just for an analogy, if one sees someone stabbed with a knife, responses of "maybe you should apply a bandage to it because that's what usually done for injuries" would probably not be taken well. Yes, pls stay away from any ani posts I might have the misfortune to make in the future, maybe I'll get someone competent rather than lighting mcqueen. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, I won't take action but you should really read WP:ASPERSIONS if you are going down that road of insulting other editors. It's likely to be a short road. Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read WP:Aspersions, but it says "where an editor accuses another editor or a group of editors of misbehavior without evidence", and I started out by laying the evidence. I can change "competent" to "who actually reads what they are replying to", if you believe the former word is insulting? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintain IBAN: iban was not the issue, I just needed clarifications before I started the iban. What are the restrictions- like i understand I can't reply to the other editor or mention him directly or indirectly and the all the stuff at WP:Editing restrictions- but can I perform actions inspired by them- "namely, asking if uncivility and uncollaborativeness is allowed on wikipedia" without mentioning them, or in case something comes up here or some other noticeboard-provide diffs. And other similar stuff.
    There wouldn't need to be a "query to admins though" if somone took more than 2 mins to read atleast something of what was put before them before replying a with generic reply. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An IBAN means stay away from the editor. If you see them editing a page, don't edit it unless you want to risk someone considering it being a reversion. If you see them do something you think is uncivil or incorrect, let another editor deal with it. To answer your question about asking a question about them without mentioning them: you should read WP:IBAN, which states that an IBAN prohibits an editor from mak[ing] reference to or comment on [the other editor] anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly (emphasis added). voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I understood that- but if raise a question against uncivility on wikipedia in general(not how did it in the diff, but actually without mention even in the examples), would that be considered indirectly mentioning him, given that the behaviour is why I'm asking for clarification on wikipedia policies? I'm not supposed to revert him-I can edit the same pages though, iban says nothing wbout that. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    given that the behaviour is why I'm asking for clarification on wikipedia policies That would be "indirectly" referencing the other editor because you've just publicly stated that the other editor is the reason you want to ask questions about the civility policy. If other editors have questions about Alex 21's conduct, they can raise them in an AN/I thread. By voluntarily accepting an IBAN, you've promised to stay out of it. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I see, thank you for the clarification, it was the only reason I reverted the voluntary IBAN. You can close this discussion, I'm fine with it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz, okay to close? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, voorts, you are the only admin who responded to this general query and it's only been open about 3 hours. But, I guess a resolution among editors is more important than me receiving feedback. I guess if anyone has a comment about this situation they can come to my very busy talk page and either give me a pat on the back or a kick in the shins, depending on what their perspective is. Liz Read! Talk! 05:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maintain IBAN. And for pete's sake someone close this thread before DoctorWhoFan91 gets themselves blocked. -- asilvering (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Uptick in non-minor edits being marked as minor

    Moved to WP:VPT § Uptick in non-minor edits being marked as minor

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    the-sports.org

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    This is one of those "I'm not sure where to ask so I'll try here" sort of things. I ran across an article with a link in "External links" to a listing on the-sports.org. (Here's a link to the old version of the article with the link: [link]) So, this "the-sports.org" has advertising and the info on the particular athlete was incomplete. Taking a closer look at the site as a whole, it looks like it was once a partner of Wikipedia, but that may have been a long time ago - there was a page with a message from perhaps the creator, with a copyright on it of 2002-2016. I also think that because the link wasn't a URL, it was a template (if that's the correct terminology.) I'm wondering if the site has been sold and is now a commercial site, selling ads on pages that, in part, get traffic from us. In which case, we may want to bulk remove any remaining links to the site on old articles.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This should go to WP:RSN. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I shall repost this over there then. Brianyoumans (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Quick uncontroversial move request of interface page

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
    Done. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Can MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-ipblocked-xff be moved to MediaWiki:Wikimedia-globalblocking-blockedtext-xff? Apparently some maintenance script (I presume) supposed to update the messages didn't do it so now the message is in the wrong place. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Also fix the parameters so they are correct after the move. Aasim (話す（はなす）) 20:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you might get a faster response to your query at WP:VPT. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Page deletion which I have made

    So I have written a wikipedia page about Pernia Qureshi and Now I want to permanently delete it. Rohitbisht1985 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The Pernia Qureshi article has existed since 2013. You're also no longer the biggest author of the page. [6] Tarlby (t) (c) 04:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the OP last previously edited in August 2019 before appearing today to try to G7 this article (declined due to not being the only, or even largest, contributor) and then PROD it (removed the PROD as no rationaile was provided at all). - The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to be clear for any new editors reading this, that being the largest single contributor to a page confers no special authority. A request to delete a page is sometimes acceptable if there are no other significant editors (meaning roughly, that there may be other editors but they are either performing administrative task like adding categories or maybe fixing a typo but not adding anything of substance to the meat of the article.) There is never a situation in which simply being a substantial contributor to a page gives you the right to request removal. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They made four or five attempts to delete it. I’ve pblocked them from the article. I am very interested to find out why @Rohitbisht1985 wants to do so. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume it's the "Personal life & Legal Cases" section that could be seen as not very flattering. I just don't know why they didn't remove any negative content and instead sought deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone on an IP did try deleting stuff today. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like most of the legal issues are about her father, not her. I’m going to remove some of those. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we should ask User:SierraTangoCharlie1 if Pernia Qureshi or a relative has been in the news as they edited the article today, too. Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw some unknown ip address edits to her wiki page. On further reading I found that the page had a lot of data which was about her father or a relative, and not exactly worth being kept on her wiki article . Hence, I removed those edits and stated reasons for the same. STC1 talk 08:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all the negative info came from a single edit last month: Special:Diff/1270596693. That editor Samdan25 only made that one edit. I’ll invite them to the party too. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 06:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Samdan25 blocked from Pernia Qureshi 31 hours for reinstating some of the stuff about her father. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    why delete the article? If vandalism occurs, we can always correct it. The Last time Pernia was in the news was when she divorced her second husband (early 2024) followed by a Vogue India article about Wedding Gowns (late 2024). STC1 talk 09:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    At Wikipedia:Administrative action review#February 2025 block of 79.13.24.38 by Johnuniq, the OP suggested this discussion be closed. If admins wish to further discuss this issue, feel free to reopen. Liz Read! Talk! 23:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I noticed 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs) adding "further reading" links earlier and blocked them after seeing that their 170 edits seemed to do nothing other than add links. The IP did not respond to a WP:REFSPAM concern expressed by ianmacm on 8 February 2025, but the IP has responded to my block message. I think an unblock would be reasonable but before that is done, people might like to consider whether the IP should have their edits restored (as they have asked), and how such activity should be regarded. Obviously there should be a good reason to highlight a particular book. What does work is when an editor who has significantly developed an article adds a couple of further readings that they have seen and which they think would benefit readers. My humble opinion is that other people focusing on just adding links is not reasonable. I will be away for a while—if someone wants to unblock, please do so without further consultation. Johnuniq (talk) 10:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am worried about the low merit of some of these links. As I said at User_talk:79.13.24.38, "The link added at The Shining (film) added very little of value. Wikipedia is not a directory of links and external links should be chosen with care so that they aid a reader's understanding." There may not have been a deliberate attempt at promoting the links, but at the very least 79.13.24.38 (talk · contribs) should have a good read of WP:EL before adding any more links.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    New redirect

    Not an issue for AN. Editors are reminded that AN is generally for serious matters and that they should check for the existence of other noticeboards or ask at the Teahouse if they're unsure. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I am requesting the creation of a redirect. New South 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 redirect to New South Wales Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The AN noticeboard is for issues impacting the project's administrators. I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, Servite et contribuere. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Liz But I do find Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects a bit confusing. Do I just type it at the bottom of where I can type? It's not an important redirect anyways. It can be done later Servite et contribuere (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Servite et contribuere, there is a blue button named Click here to request the creation of a new redirect. Click on it, and it will give you instructions regarding the creation of a new redirect. Codename Noreste (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Codename Noreste It's after the Blue Buttons I find it tricky Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For help like this, I recommend going with your questions to the Teahouse. They have editors around to walk you through steps like these. AN? Not so much. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Dev0475

    Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

    To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections. Other editors may comment below. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

    Appealing user
    Dev0475 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Sanction being appealed
    Per informal admin colloquy, it is noted that Dev0745's edits since [the earlier, broader] topic ban's imposition have largely violated it, but also largely been acceptable, and as such imposing a sanction for these violations would not serve a preventative purpose. Instead, the ban is narrowed to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed; Dev0745 is warned that this new scope covers some of the edits they had been making, which they must take care to avoid in the future.
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    Waived. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 04:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Dev0475

    Hello, I got banned by Tamzin on 10 May 2023 for continued use of low-quality sources, misrepresentation of sources, and improper synthesis of sources. See [7]. Since then I have learned considerably about how to find proper sources. Then, Tamzin narrowed the ban to all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan, broadly construed on 11 January 2025. See [8]. I request to uplift the ban from all pages related to politics, religion, and culture in India and Pakistan since I have learned considerably about how to find proper sources and write them. Dev0745 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Statement by Tamzin

    Statement by (involved editor 1)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Dev0475

    RfC close

    Does anyone want to tackle the close here: Wikipedia:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity? Formative days have mostly passed and not enough recent opinions. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Canvassing of editor King Lobclaw by a now-banned user

    Krucial Khristian Kru, an editor already banned for a username policy violation, apparently had an email conversation with another user, @King Lobclaw (see here) where Krucial admitted to canvassing. Lobclaw later admitted to having been canvassed as well (see here) and later confirmed this in the discussion thread on the Gulf of Mexico page as well as on their own user talk page when asked about it. Cortador (talk) 12:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Krucial Khristian Kru is blocked, not banned. --Yamla (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You know the consequences if you fail to do so certainly sounds like a threat. I have suggested to King Lobclaw that if any further efforts are made to compel them to edit on behalf of a blocked user they should contact the trust and safety team. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an FYI that King Lobclaw just said they plan on deactivating their Wikipedia email link in order to sever that contact method and prevent Krucial Khristian Krew or any of their socks from targeting them further. I think we should likely discount their compelled !vote but take no further action against King Lobclaw. However for the threatening editor I think a community ban against the sock master for canvassing with threats should be logged. They should not be coming back from their block. Ever. Simonm223 (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I blocked email access for Krucial Khristian Kru. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Review of Closure: RFC on Musk’s Alleged Nazi Salute

    I request a review of the closure of this RFC, as the closer failed to properly weigh arguments and misapplied WP:SNOW.

    • Failure to Weigh Arguments – The closure relied too much on vote count rather than policy-based reasoning. Several valid policy arguments were not meaningfully addressed.
    • Misuse of WP:SNOW – The discussion was active and contained several perspectives, making SNOW closure inappropriate. The outcome was not so obvious as to justify shutting down debate.

    The closer reiterated their belief that this is SNOW close in the follow up discussion. I request an administrator review the closure, as it may have prematurely ended a legitimate discussion that had only been open 12 days. Given this is a WP:BLP more care should be applied to discussions of this nature. Nemov (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Closer statement

    Closer here. I'm not sure whether I count as a participant or not so here I am. I reread through it just now (and probably more closely than I did when closing it) and I support my original close. As @User:Simonm223 pointed out here, most of the non-trivial B arguments boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Multiple A/C voters directly rebutted these arguments on multiple points. From weighing these arguments, I agree with some A/C voters that WP:RECENTISM was being misinterpreted. Looking back at my close, I could consider removing the WP:SNOWCLAUSE assessment, but I'm not convinced I would even do that. The only other option I would seriously consider is closing as no-consensus and reopening with better options and proper question wording. guninvalid (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think any editors directly argued against WP:NOTNEWS, but several editors disputed WP:RECENTISM. Next to the WP:RS arguments though, I'd say it still weighs in favor of A/C. guninvalid (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-participants

    • Hard to evaluate the close when the RfC is so badly worded: "So, can we say 'Musk received widespread criticism for what some perceived as a Nazi salute (An accusation he denied)'" -- say where? Instead of what? Based on what sources? Is it asking whether it can be mentioned in the article at all, or is it about the lead? Is it about one sentence about the salute among the full paragraph that's there? At the most basic level, insofar as there's we have an entire article related to something Musk did, it would be contrary to summary style to exclude it -- is that the debate? Or is it some aspect of the wording? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse RfC result Having read through the thread I would have closed it exactly the same way if I'd come across it. There was a massive numerical superiority to including mention of the nazi salute in some form but, beyond that, the stronger argument was for inclusion. Arguments against inclusion boiled down to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM but neither of those accounted for either Mr. Musk's now multi-year flirtation with the far right (which kind of undermines the recentism argument) nor did they provide adequate justification for how WP:NOTNEWS applies. Discussion of whether to include Mr. Musk's trolling photo collage of democrats with their arms stuck out or a video of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez making an arm gesture that was clearly not a Nazi salute is completely pointless to an assessment of the RfC question and should honestly be struck as WP:NOTFORUM. Meanwhile those who supported inclusion successfully demonstrated significant reliable coverage of the gesture Mr. Musk made and demonstrated that it was a notable action. This was a good close. There's no need to belabor RfCs that clearly will go a specific way just so that Musk fans can repeat the same forumy asides about perceived opponents of Mr. Musk. Simonm223 (talk) 14:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's kinda odd seeing the closer quote Simon223's analysis/summary of the arguments when the closer should have done that themselves, considering they knew it was a contentious topic. I also think it should have been allowed to run the full thirty days. Should it be overturned, probably not, but in the future, the closer should take note of giving a more detailed closure rationale when closing a contentious topic RfC. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      The only reason was because I thought it was WP:SNOW. In hindsight, I probably should've still included a sentence or two, but as I stated in the post-close discussion, I felt that the B arguments had been properly disputed by A/C editors. I just explained it in more detail in my statement above. guninvalid (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse close I second Isaidnoway's concerns about process/closure rationale, but overall the close seems like an accurate reading of consensus. The Kip (contribs) 19:25, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Participants

    • Well it should not have been snow close but to assume that "Failure to Weigh Arguments" seems like a massive assumption, based on (dare I also say) it a Failure to Weigh Arguments.Just becasue they did not get the result they wanted did not mean their arguments were ignored, just that they may not have been good enough. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Here (by the way) is the RFC [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's shouldn't be closed as SNOW and the merits of the arguments, especially in context of this being a BLP need to be part of the closing discussion. This is a case where the declared consensus may be correct but if the RfC is to have meaning the rational should also be correct. Note that I !voted exclude but by going only by the numbers I think this is consensus for include. Springee (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just as a note, since people are asserting that WP:NOTNEWS wasn't addressed - I view NOTNEWS and RECENTISM as intrinsically connected, at least in this context. My extended comment there rebutting the RECENTISM arguments obviously applies equally to the NOTNEWS ones; I assumed that that went without saying. Beyond that, while the RFC was oddly-worded and should have had more workshopping on a specific wording, it was clear that the real dispute was "should this be included at all", and the discussion was extremely lopsided in favor of inclusion. The arguments for exclusion (as I pointed out when analyzing the hollowness of the RECENTISM argument) were weak because they lacked specific reference to the context at hand - simply repeating NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no context-specific argument, as many of the arguments for exclusion did, isn't a strong argument at all and isn't something people ought to expect would help them in a case where such arguments also clearly failed to convince many people. Note that Namor's own arguments from the RFC fall into this category - a vague handwave towards NOTNEWS and RECENTISM with no explanation for why they apply here; those policies obviously do not support the automatic removal of everything in the news or everything recent, so the lack of context made them extremely weak arguments. As, again, I clearly indicated during the RFC, and which nobody adequately rebutted! And many of the other arguments against inclusion relied on editors trying to interpret Musk's gesture themselves or expressing their own personal opinions about it, which a closer obviously had to disregard. Overturning a lopsided majority requires that you have clearly stronger arguments, and while obviously everyone is always going to think their own arguments are the strongest, I'm simply not seeing how anyone could hope to win on the merits of their arguments with arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Elias Hossain(s)

    There was a bit of a mess which I think (?) I've sorted out, but wanted to flag up here just in case.

    Elias Hossain had a redir to Elias Hossain (disambiguation), which dabs between Elias Hossain (journalist) and Elias Hossain (footballer).

    An hour ago, Darkonexdo requested G7 on Elias Hossain (journalist), which I declined because they're not the only or even the main author of it. They then copypaste moved the content from there to Elias Hossain, replacing the redir that was there, effectively making the journalist the primary topic for this term.

    I've no idea which, if either, is the actual primary topic, but I assumed there was a reason why that term was pointing to the dab page. Also, the copypaste obviously would have lost the edit history. So I reverted things back to how they were.

    In doing all that, I was reminded that there's also Draft:Elias Hossain (journalist), declined at AfC on the basis of the main space article. But that draft dates back to Jan 14th, whereas the main space one seems to have been created only on the 25th. At least one editor has edited both versions, so there may have been some copying across (I haven't checked), but it wasn't a straight copypaste move at least. I guess my question is, is there any (easy) way of determining if any of the history from the draft needs merging with the published article? And/or does anyone spot anything I've missed?

    Finally, just to say that this subject has had a bit of a troubled genesis in more ways than one, so I wouldn't be surprised if some interesting critters are found in the undergrowth. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is also some confusing article creation and page moving around Mohammad Elias (educator), Mohammad Elias, Elias Hossainn, Imtiyaz Ahmed (actor), Imtiaz Ahmed (actor) and Imtiaz Ahmad. Mostly deleted through CSD but also an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imtiaz Ahmed (actor). I think this is all about usurping page titles for the preferred article subject. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Cover Images with Albums/Singles

    Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Cover Images with Albums/Singles

    Scamer

    A user named "Muhammad Shahroz Muhammad Aslam" on LinkedIn is impersonating a Wikipedia administrator and targeting users in the Articles for Creation (AfC) process. He messaged me, claiming he could approve my Wikipedia article if I "fix some issues."

    Wikipedia editors should be aware of this scam to prevent others from being tricked into giving up information or paying for fake approvals.

    LinkedIn Profile: [INSERT LINK HERE] Screenshot of Message: [INSERT LINK OR COPY TEXT OF MESSAGE] ButtonWarren (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1275574409"